# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_January 10 11 1992_S10
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Since the Commission on Constitutional matters has the ultimate responsibility for the
interpretation of Synod's Bylaws, it is regrettable that the parties did not ask the
Commission on Appeals to obtain a ruling from this Commission before that body made
the very substantial expenditure of research and energy represented by the lengthy,
articulate and carefully reasoned majority and minority opinions. This Commission is
exercising its authority due to the nature of this particular question, under 3.533,d and
will interpret the bylaw in a manner intended to be binding on the question.
In this case, the district president considered a complaint against a member of the Synod
to terminate his individual membership. After consideration of the complaint, the district
president declined to suspend the member in accordance with the provisions of 2.27,b.
The complainant did not thereafter petition the President of Synod pursuant to 2.27,f of
the Bylaws. Instead, the complainant sought to appeal the district president's decision to
the District Commission on Adjudication. The District Commission on Adjudication
which was not certain it had jurisdiction had sought the opinion of the Commission on
Appeals as to its jurisdiction. The Commission on Appeals ruled in a five to four decision
that the District Commission on Adjudication had jurisdiction.
It is the conclusion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters that the Oklahoma
District Commission on Adjudication is without jurisdiction to consider further the
termination of the member. Neither the governing Bylaw section 2.27 nor any other
provision of the Bylaws provides for the further prosecution of a termination proceeding
under the circumstances presented in this case. Once the district president has declined to
suspend, the only course available to the complainant was to follow the procedure
established in 2.27,f, which is an appeal to the President of the Synod.
The termination of a congregation or individual membership in the Synod is a matter of
the utmost gravity requiring great safeguards. In short, the Bylaws interpose the
discretionary judgment of the district president and the synodical president as a condition
precedent to the prosecution of such a proceeding before the Commission on
Adjudication.
The Commission on Constitutional Matters notes that in the matter of the charges against Dr.
Bruch, it is assumed the matter first came before the Board of Regents of Concordia College, St.
Paul, Minnesota, and then was referred to the ecclesiastical authorities. Consequently, Bylaw 2.27
would govern in this matter. In the present case, the charges were presented to the President of
the Minnesota South District and subsequently to the President of the Synod who, it is presumed,
sought the counsel and opinion of other members of the Praesidium. Bylaw 2.27,f states:
After a complainant has notified the District President in writing that he/she wishes to
pursue a matter which could lead to termination of membership, the District President
shall begin investigation of the matter within 60 days. If the District President acts by
suspending the member, the matter follows the normal adjudication procedure. If the
District President acts by declining to suspend the member, or fails to act within 90 days
of receiving the notice of desire to pursue the matter, the complainant may present a
formal complaint to the Praesidium of the Synod which shall make inquiries and may on
its own initiative institute proceedings, take administrative action, and, if necessary,
present charges to the appropriate District Commission on Adjudication. If the
Praesidium determines not to proceed, it shall so inform the complainant and the involved
member in writing, which shall terminate the matter. If the Praesidium takes no action